 |
|
|
Phast1
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 14, 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 2082
|
|
Review Date: Feb 18, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,090.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Great focal range, fast.
|
|
Cons:
|
Heavy
|
|
|
I love this focal range for all around use. It's my walkaround lens and I definitely bring it when travelling. I'm on my 3rd copy. My first one was tack sharp. Second copy was a little soft on the wide end but nothing to complain about. My 3rd is awesome on the whole range. I sold the previous copy's to fund other purchases otherwise this is definitely a keeper lens.
Very good L saturation and contrast. Having used this lens on and off for 18 months I'm at ease saying it's very worth the price. It has helped me produce stunning images as far as superior color rendition and sharpness go.
I've also used this lens in poorly lit sporting events with great success. My preferred lens for this is the 35L but if I needed the range I'd be happy to have this lens in the bag.
Used on: 20D, 1DMkII-N
Highly reccomended
|
|
 Feb 18, 2006
|
|
Leehman
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 29, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 515
|
|
Review Date: Feb 16, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,250.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Quality,, fast, sharp, a pleasure to use
|
|
Cons:
|
heavy, but I knew that before buying.
|
|
|
I have been using this lens for three months.
I like this lens in combination with 70x200 f/2.8 Is on a 1.6 crop camera. Solved the heavy lens issue with a good monopod, which I should be using when ever possible anyway.
Waiting to test in on a full frame soon.
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2006
|
|
CPSLOPHOTO
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 6, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 463
|
|
Review Date: Feb 13, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,139.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Great lens. Beautiful color, contrast, and focuses pretty fast.
|
|
Cons:
|
Sometimes I wish it would focus quicker in low light, but it could be my 20D. I don't mind the weight that many people complain about.
|
|
|
Considering what this lens is meant to do (wide angle to telephoto) this is an outstanding lens. I use this for everything from weddings, portraits, and landscapes. Granted, the focal length isn't ideal on a 1.6x, but this is a great lens if you needed just one lens to get you through low light situations.
|
|
|
Feb 13, 2006
|
|
barabus
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 22, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 441
|
|
Review Date: Feb 12, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,149.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast, great color, well built
|
|
Cons:
|
too heavy, more zoom would be great, reverse zoom take soom getting used to.
|
|
|
Better than the 24-105 at the widest angle. Do not need the 24mm all the time, but this zoom is handy. Use this lens most frequently when I am not doing telephoto.
|
|
|
Feb 12, 2006
|
|
Konthai
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 15, 2005
Location: Singapore
Posts: 11
|
|
Review Date: Feb 12, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Build quality, fast
|
|
Cons:
|
CA
|
|
|
Have been using it for sometime now... image quality is excellent! I hope I have $ to get the body to match this lens.
Try the 24-105 IS the other day but still prefer this one.
|
|
|
Feb 12, 2006
|
|
parks1510
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 11, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 3
|
|
Review Date: Feb 11, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,149.95
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Excellent sharpness, color depth, bokeh. A true pleasure to work with.
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 11, 2006
|
|
fotki
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 8, 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 3
|
|
Review Date: Feb 8, 2006
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
Pros:
|
Nice randge. Solid build.
|
|
Cons:
|
Soft, soft, soft
|
|
|
First one was a dud. Erratic focussing and overall softness made it useless, just a very expensive paperweight!
Second one was slightly better but still very far from what one would expect from L glass. ( I also use a 70-200mm L and a 35mm L ) even my 10-22 mm produces better results...
Third one (direct from Canon Canada) was just like the second one... SOFT !
After 6 months of back and forth to Canon service center and many phone calls and hundreds of pictures I couldnt use, I gave up on this lens... and I after reading the reviews of the new 24-105mm I am not even tempted to try it.
If you enjoy testing lenses these are good choices but if you need sharp high quality glass to produce consistent high quality work, forget it.
|
|
|
Feb 8, 2006
|
|
Juliansimon
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 3, 2006
Location: Chile
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Feb 6, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Rápido, Luminoso, Confiable y durable construcción.
|
|
Cons:
|
Es un poco pesado, pero eso me gusta por la estabilidad que ofrece.
|
|
|
Hola, tengo este lente desde hace 10 dias y la verdad es que me ha dejado sin palabras.Es extremadamente bueno en todo aspecto, construccion, luminosidad, respuesta, es lo que estaba buscando desde hace mucho tiempo.
Yo lo uso con mi 20D y la verdad es que lo único que me incomoda es el factor de corte, pero en mi caso no es muy limitante a la hora de hacer fotos de retratos en estudio por ejemplo.
Creo que el peso de 950g. es bastante para un lente, pero me da confianza y estabilidad al momento de tomar una foto.
El precio es alto, pero después de que uno lo coloca en la camara, todo el malestar producido por haber pagado tanto dinero desaparece al comprobar el verdadero porque de este alto precio: su calidad en todo sentido, pero sobretodo en la imagen, es en pocas palabras excepcional.
Mi 20D tambien es nueva y llego junto al lente, por lo que debo decir que tengo mucho menos efectivo en el bolsillo, pero mucha satisfaccion al momento de tomar mis fotos.
Julián Montoni
Santiago de Chile
|
|
|
Feb 6, 2006
|
|
changkw
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 3, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 95
|
|
Review Date: Feb 4, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,100.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Constrast and color, especially in low light. F/2.8 usable, F/4 tack sharp.
|
|
Cons:
|
Size/weight but managable when you get used to it. Big Hood.
|
|
|
Why not 24mm-105mm IS:
I shoot a lot of interior/architecture in lower light condition. I decided not to get 24-105mm IS, due to its more obvious distortion on both ends.
F/2.8, F/4 and DOF:
This lens is also used as a general PORTRAIT lens. Nice OOF background blur. I tested some shots with F/2.8 and F/4 to see the difference of OOF. Honestly, not dramatically different especially on 1.6Crop body. But still "recognizably" different.
When I say the F/2.8 is usable, means the sharpness is acceptable, especailly we need to consider the shallow DOF would easily make the image not that sharp. When I took shots of something with higher color/texture contrast, the result of F/2.8 is quite nice (not amazing, but quite pleasing).
I used 24mm f/1.4 before. I feel like on all faster lenses: The sharpness issue in wide open is considerably improvable with good management of DOF and choice of objects. (I am talking about fast lenses with shorter focal length. Not the DOF thing on the amazing 70-200mm)
Happy Shooting~
|
|
|
Feb 4, 2006
|
|
Liquidpics
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: Jun 14, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 1107
|
|
Review Date: Feb 3, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp from f/2.8 on.... The build quality alone is enough to choose this lens over the third party varieties. On a full frame camera it's got the best focal range- wide to medium telephoto.
|
|
Cons:
|
It's the HEAVIEST lens for it's size you'll ever handle. I'm still not sure if it's that's negative though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 3, 2006
|
|
skb558
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 18, 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 5
|
|
Review Date: Feb 3, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Image quality, build quality, colour reproduction.
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
|
Some people have had issues with this lens and their are numerous complaints about it's size and weight. I don't have a concern about either.
It's quality in all aspects is excellent. I've taken some informal test shots and it is sharp across all focal lengths. Someone said it is weak at 70mm wide open so I took a few shots and yes it is weaker than at f4 and f8 but it is still very sharp.
I shoot primarily in RAW and without any sharpening in Rawshooter Premium the images are very satisfying to me.
It's not cheap but you know that when you go into the shop.
Get one.
|
|
|
Feb 3, 2006
|
|
Rob_287
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 23, 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Jan 31, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Build quality, image quality, handling - everything you would expect from a L series zoom.
|
|
Cons:
|
None that I can think of.
|
|
|
Stunning lens in every respect, if you are used to pro bodies and other L series zooms it doesn't seem heavy at all. The overall feel is superb, it just oozes quality. As for the images it produces, I have used it on a 5D and 1Ds Mark II and the results are stunning, no complaints whatsoever. If you need and f/2.8 lens then this is the one, if you don't need the extra stop then seriously consider the 24-105 f/4 L IS which is also excellent - it all comes down to what you need to get the job done!
|
|
|
Jan 31, 2006
|
|
cezars
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 1, 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 137
|
|
Review Date: Jan 29, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,050.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
exceptional optics; not as heavy as I expected; worth the money
|
|
Cons:
|
price, but like I said, it's worth it :)
|
|
I'm glad I purchased this lens. I originally had the 18-55 kit lens (which is terrible) and then replaced it with the 28-135. I needed a bit more sharpness, and the 24-70 was my answer 
I did a few test shots and at f/8 and 28mm, the 24-70 was about 3 times sharper than the 28-135, which was 2 times sharper than the 18-55.
With the 18-55, I had to reject more than half of my shots because of lack of sharpness. With the 24-70, more than 90% of the shots are perfect.
Highly recommended!
[Note to myself: never buy another kit lens again]
|
|
|
Jan 29, 2006
|
|
uncleblog
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 25, 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jan 25, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Extremely versatile, solid, top quality images. It's a keeper! Worth the money, as it covers so many bases. Buy this lens first.
|
|
Cons:
|
None really. The reverse zoom feels weird at first and the hood is a bit unwieldy. Forget discreet shooting. Makes most of your other lenses redundant;) Stretches your pocket.
|
|
|
My regular setup is a 20D, battery grip, 580EX and this lens. Oh, and a tripod. This means you cannot carry it around on the off-chance of getting a candid snapshot; you have to commit to being a person carrying $4k's worth of kit around and hope to become invisible (flash excepted), as photographers should be. Trouble is, this lens spoils you for anything else digital. They say 'kit doesn't matter, it's what's behind the camera', which is true for vision, composition and photojournalism; but however inspired you are, this lens will raise your game big time. And you can always beat off muggers with it.
|
|
|
Jan 25, 2006
|
|
imeod
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 13, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 35
|
|
Review Date: Jan 25, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,129.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
sharp as a tack! f2.8 superfast on Canon's newer digital cameras.
|
|
Cons:
|
Reverse telescoping zoom. (24mm at full extension and 70mm fully retracted)
|
|
|
This is a great overall lens. However, I'm not a big fan of telescoping zoom lenses. The external moving back and forth tends to suck dust and dirt into the lens (even L series lenses). The reverse telescoping zoom makes it even more retardedly odd, but it didn't take long to get use to. I think that this is Canon's best cost-to-performance L series lens.
|
|
|
Jan 25, 2006
|
|
capitalK
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 25, 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 1024
|
|
Review Date: Jan 23, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,150.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, super fast AF on a 1-series body, MF is silky smooth, built solid, 77mm is almost a standard on a lot of L glass, makes it easy to share filter between lenses
|
|
Cons:
|
Size and weight, length with hood attached or at maximum wide-angle
|
|
|
I love this lens, I bought it about a week before I bought my 1D and was using it on the 350D. It was my first L and the AF and sharpness were faster than my other lenses but with the 1.6x crop it just wasn't wide enough for me.
Once I got my 1D, however, everything changed. The AF is lightning fast and with the 1.3x crop it seems much wider. I have a sharp copy, I have not been disappointed with it at any aperture and the colours are great. Instantly I understood why people spend the money on a pro body and L glass, the difference is night and day. I don't know if it'll make me a better photographer, but it certainly makes me a happy photographer.
One sneaky side benefit of this lens is that because it's so long it looks like a telephoto lens. That way when you are trying to shoot candids the people on the edges of the frame tend to assume they are not in the shot and you're able to capture them in a more natural stance.
|
|
|
Jan 23, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
531
|
879443
|
Mar 22, 2013
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
89% of reviewers
|
$1,193.60
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
9.70
|
8.39
|
9.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
